guenther wrote:The pro-Prop. 8 voters may not see their relationship to the gay community as a mother or father helping them make choices. If that's the case, then I can't understand how paternalism is valid. I mean, with your argument, it seems like we could say that every law that removes freedom and takes us away from pure anarchy is because of paternalism. Which means if you don't support pure anarchy then you support paternalism. But then it's a pretty meaningless descriptor.
First, that not a very strong argument given the qualifiers strewn about. Secondly, yes my previous argument needs more "without taking into account the feelings of party affected" which is why paternalism doesn't apply to all laws.
guenther wrote:First, you're conflating "You are morally inferior" with "You're belief in what's right is morally inferior to mine".
Not so much. It isn't conflating if I say "your ability at baseball is inferior to mine therefore your an inferior baseball player relative to me". Same applies here. Person and action/ability/belief aren't entirely separate when describing/thinking about them. This is because people are morally responsible for their moral positions.
Second, some people may use their belief that their position is morally superior to argue that they are morally superior, but that's completely anti-Christian. That's why I said
that I could point to the Bible to prove them wrong. The Bible is very clear which moral position is superior to all other positions (excepting for gray ares of interpretation), but it's also clear that we are all equally and woefully too morally inferior to be redeemed by our own deeds. So there's never cause to say one person is morally better than another (except when comparing to Jesus).
Anti-Christian? Really? The idea that there can be no moral comparison between anyone (except Jesus vs. Everybody) seems to be undermined by the idea of saints and the like. Even though Christ's morally purity can be measured in gigaboyscouts that doesn't mean that no moral comparison can be made between Joseph Kony (-400 boyscouts) and Mother Theresa (400 boyscouts). Furthermore, if the was truly anti-Christian then why are many Christians saying things like "those immoral gays/whores/trrrists/people who hate people/target at the time"? Poor theological education?
guenther wrote:Third, that stuff all came up in a brief tangent with Jesse and is not my main case. My main case is that we should not use words that describe intent if we are really arguing about impact. I'm surprised I've found so little support for this statement. Anyone that values rational debate should jump on board. It's simply logically wrong to do this.
I'll endorse that statement. However we aren't just decrying impact in this thread so a mix of language is acceptable in my view.
guenther wrote:The second part of my point is that for people that really do want to make intent as part of their case, they should have solid evidence to support it.
For me intent is part of it because they don't support gay marriage intentionally. Since opposing gay marriage is wrong inherently (unless they can show an actual logical argument against it in which case I'd reconsider), they're doing wrong and intending to do so. Its also an inherently hateful thing to do (just because no hate is intended doesn't mean that no hate occurs) so the same agreement applies to they are doing hate intentionally.
guenther wrote:I believe the Us vs. Them dichotomy biases each side to see the other side as bad people. So when people make the argument unsupported, I wonder if it's not really the irrational influence of politics that makes that sound appealing. And it won't ever convince me without evidence.
guenther, the thing is, the other side are bad people. Even if they do shit gumdrops and smell of unicorn on every other issue there are Doing It Wrong on gay marriage. I'm allowed to call them on that and say that their actions and moral stance is bad, hence they are bad people because they are morally responsible for this as I covered earlier.
guenther wrote:I will be away for a bit, so I don't know when I'll respond to the thread again.
Hope you're going somewhere nice, have fun